V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent Tube -well Division and he states that he had been superannuated as a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from the department on 31st July, 2000. Consequent to his retirement he was awarded his post retiral benefits and his pay scale revision was accordingly fixed after giving him a notional promotion. The promotional pay scale was also awarded to him vide order dated 16.2.2002 and increment was also given to him on that count. The petitioner moved an application for revision of his pension with arrears but instead of awarding the revision of pay scale an order was passed on 28.7.2003 to make certain recovery from the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer passed an order on 12th January, 2004 ordering final recovery from the petitioner against which the petitioner filed writ petition No. 48062 of 2004. The same was disposed of on 10th November, 2004 with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. Upon such direction an order was passed on 10th March, 2005. Said order has been subject matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66175 of 2005 Ganga Ram Nagar Versus State of U.P. and this court proceeded to allow the aforementioned writ petition by passing following order, relevant extract of which is being quoted below. While issuing a direction this Court in the order dated 10.11.2004 had hinted as to under what circumstances the liability was sought to be fixed. The respondents instead of delving into their authority to proceed in the matter went on to fix the liability on the petitioner as if they had the authority to do so. Such a liability, that may even entail a major penalty, if dereliction in duty and financial loss is established, can be fixed only on a regular enquiry either during the subsistence of the service or upon a sanction under law within close proximity of retirement as per rules. No such procedure having been adopted the order impugned is illegal. In my opinion, the respondents have erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned order and recover the amount from the petitioner. The order dated 10th March, 2005 does not have the authority of law and is therefore unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed". Against the said order in question, Special Appeal No. 764 of 2011 had been preferred and said appeal was also dismissed on 3.8.2011. Petitioner thereafter, on 30.12.2011 represented the matter giving therein detail of the amount which had already been paid to him and further request was also made to award interest. The authority concern considered the request and informed the petitioner that amount in question which had been recovered, same has been returned vide cheque dated 4.11.2011 and further it was precisely mentioned that in the order passed by this court there has been no direction to ensure the interest and further there is no policy decision to award the interest as such interest cannot be paid. Petitioner at the said juncture has rushed to this court and his insistence is that interest at the rate of 6% in all eventuality ought to have been allowed to the petitioner, as petitioner was not at fault.
(2.) SMT . Mahima Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that claim of the interest in all eventuality ought to have been accepted as has been claimed by the petitioner, as petitioner is not at all at fault as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that pursuant to the order passed by this court, amount which has been recovered, same has been returned back, and at no point of time this court ever proceeded to pass order for awarding any interest in favour of the petitioner and as such demand made by the petitioner is unjustifiable and is not sustainable.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation, on which there is no dispute that order was passed on 23.12.2011 to asking for recovery to be made from the petitioner and thereafter, Superintending Engineer passed order on 12.1.2004 ordering for final recovery from the petitioner. Against the said decision, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48062 of 2004 and same was disposed of with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner. Upon such order being passed, further follow up order was passed, on 10.3.2005 on the premises that petitioner has caused loss to the department by not keeping the items which were in his custody in proper form and since no recovery has been made on earlier occasion, same should be done under the said order. Said amount was accordingly deducted from the pension and after deduction, balance amount has been paid to the petitioner through treasury cheque. This court quashed the said order and writ petition was allowed on 7.5.2010. This court at no point of time gave any direction for ensuring payment of interest on the said amount in question, which had been illegally deducted the said order is silent on the said score. Said order had been upheld in Special Appeal No. 764 of 2011. This is accepted position that amount which has been deduced from the pension amount, same has been returned and petitioner's insistence is that on the said amount, petitioner is also entitled to get interest also. This much has been accepted by the petitioner that on delayed payment, there is no provision for any interest being provided for. Once such is the factual situation that on the said amount in question this court had not given any direction for ensuring payment of interest amount on account of delayed payment and there is no statutory provision for ensuring such payment, then in view of this opinion which have been formed by the authority concern cannot be faulted.;